logo Sign In

Going away? Post so here! — Page 49

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

It is a pic of Sinead O Connor when she tore apart the pic of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Author
Time

It was just a picture of the guy? Why didn’t she tear the Marvel
comic of Pope John Paul II instead?

.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

It is a pic of Sinead O Connor when she tore apart the pic of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Ah. It makes me sad more than anything, that people would think that way about such a holy pope and about the Church. I wasn’t familiar with that particular incident on SNL, so I looked it up and watched part of an interview with Sinéad. What a deluded human being. It’s terrible that she had to suffer abuse as a child, though. It sounds like that was the main source of her attitude towards the Church.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

yhwx said:

He’ll soon be back. And in greater numbers.

That’ll get him banned.

As long as he walks on a single file line, he’ll be alright.

That’s when I carried him.

I know this was made a while ago, but I only saw it as I was leaving and haven’t had the chance to respond this post of Frink’s.

Frink I am pretty sure that this was an attempted as making light of the fact that I am Christian and I am sure you were referencing this poem:

FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND:

One night I dreamed a dream.
As I was walking along the beach with my Lord.
Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life.
For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand,
One belonging to me and one to my Lord.

After the last scene of my life flashed before me,
I looked back at the footprints in the sand.
I noticed that at many times along the path of my life,
especially at the very lowest and saddest times,
there was only one set of footprints.

This really troubled me, so I asked the Lord about it.
“Lord, you said once I decided to follow you,
You’d walk with me all the way.
But I noticed that during the saddest and most troublesome times of my life,
there was only one set of footprints.
I don’t understand why, when I needed You the most, You would leave me.”

He whispered, “My precious child, I love you and will never leave you
Never, ever, during your trials and testings.
When you saw only one set of footprints,
It was then that I carried you.”

I think you were making light of that poem too. This deeply offends me. That poem helped me get through my father’s last month. I was constantly praying “God, carry me through this”. If I am wrong in my interpretation of your post, I apologize. But if I am right, that was a low thing to do. I don’t think I am unreasonable in asking for an apology(if my interpretation was right).

You are completely wrong.

Welcome back?

I have to say you’re off to a great start.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

yhwx said:

He’ll soon be back. And in greater numbers.

That’ll get him banned.

As long as he walks on a single file line, he’ll be alright.

That’s when I carried him.

I know this was made a while ago, but I only saw it as I was leaving and haven’t had the chance to respond this post of Frink’s.

Frink I am pretty sure that this was an attempted as making light of the fact that I am Christian and I am sure you were referencing this poem:

FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND:

One night I dreamed a dream.
As I was walking along the beach with my Lord.
Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life.
For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand,
One belonging to me and one to my Lord.

After the last scene of my life flashed before me,
I looked back at the footprints in the sand.
I noticed that at many times along the path of my life,
especially at the very lowest and saddest times,
there was only one set of footprints.

This really troubled me, so I asked the Lord about it.
“Lord, you said once I decided to follow you,
You’d walk with me all the way.
But I noticed that during the saddest and most troublesome times of my life,
there was only one set of footprints.
I don’t understand why, when I needed You the most, You would leave me.”

He whispered, “My precious child, I love you and will never leave you
Never, ever, during your trials and testings.
When you saw only one set of footprints,
It was then that I carried you.”

I think you were making light of that poem too. This deeply offends me. That poem helped me get through my father’s last month. I was constantly praying “God, carry me through this”. If I am wrong in my interpretation of your post, I apologize. But if I am right, that was a low thing to do. I don’t think I am unreasonable in asking for an apology(if my interpretation was right).

This blows my fucking mind.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

It is a pic of Sinead O Connor when she tore apart the pic of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Ah. It makes me sad more than anything, that people would think that way about such a holy pope and about the Church. I wasn’t familiar with that particular incident on SNL, so I looked it up and watched part of an interview with Sinéad. What a deluded human being. It’s terrible that she had to suffer abuse as a child, though. It sounds like that was the main source of her attitude towards the Church.

It makes me sad more than anything that that man is viewed a “such a holy pope.” His complicity in the mass child rape and the Church’s cover-up of the mass child rape makes him an accessory at the absolute best, and likely far, far worse. I’d call his defenders the deluded human beings. Before anyone claims I’m being mean or “bigoted” for the use of the word deluded, I’d like to point out that I, since I hold the same position as Sinéad, was called deluded first. This isn’t the thread for such statements so I won’t state how I really feel about John Paul II, but since I’m kind of being implicated in this exchange I felt the need to explain my side. Interestingly, the reason I have this picture is because I was asked to change my old avatar since it made it look like I was a banned user, and for reasons I don’t quite remember anymore I wanted an anti-establishment, fight-the-power image as my avatar so I chose Sinéad.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

It makes me sad that the two of you feel this way.

Author
Time

It saddens you that I’m not won over by a pretty robe and a lavish palace?

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

It is a pic of Sinead O Connor when she tore apart the pic of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Ah. It makes me sad more than anything, that people would think that way about such a holy pope and about the Church. I wasn’t familiar with that particular incident on SNL, so I looked it up and watched part of an interview with Sinéad. What a deluded human being. It’s terrible that she had to suffer abuse as a child, though. It sounds like that was the main source of her attitude towards the Church.

It makes me sad more than anything that that man is viewed a “such a holy pope.” His complicity in the mass child rape and the Church’s cover-up of the mass child rape makes him an accessory at the absolute best, and likely far, far worse. I’d call his defenders the deluded human beings. Before anyone claims I’m being mean or “bigoted” for the use of the word deluded, I’d like to point out that I, since I hold the same position as Sinéad, was called deluded first. This isn’t the thread for such statements so I won’t state how I really feel about John Paul II, but since I’m kind of being implicated in this exchange I felt the need to explain my side. Interestingly, the reason I have this picture is because I was asked to change my old avatar since it made it look like I was a banned user, and for reasons I don’t quite remember anymore I wanted an anti-establishment, fight-the-power image as my avatar so I chose Sinéad.

I don’t want to completely derail this thread, so I’ll keep my responses relatively brief:

I suspect JP II either naïvely gave guilty priests the benefit of the doubt or was simply ignorant of the extent of their wrongdoings. “Mass child rape” is certainly not a fitting expression for atrocities committed by 1% of priests, but I certainly agree that the pope should have done more. I don’t think he was perfect by any means.

By referring to Sinéad as deluded, I was referring primarily to her claim that child abuse is at the root of all the world’s problems, and her belief that she is Catholic despite rejecting the Catholic Church outright. I get the impression that you’re intelligent enough not to espouse those positions.

Author
Time

1% of priests is still, what, 3-400,000? So I’d say “mass” is an apt descriptor. Or maybe it was a pun.

.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

There are about 500,000 priests in the world, so it’s closer to 5,000. That’s 5,000 too many, but it’s hardly symptomatic of a general crisis in the Church. The fact that these priests have been able to abuse so many children and adolescents is perhaps indicative of the trust which most Catholics rightfully have for priests, that allows the 1% the opportunity to abuse minors.

It’s also worth noting that the problem is a societal problem, not an ecclesiastical one. In 2014, for example, there were 781 teachers school staff accused of sexual abuse (see here)—in the US alone. According to one study, 10% of students experience some form of sexual abuse from school staff (see here). Perhaps the problem with the Church’s past handling of the situation stems from the fact that it preaches mercy, and this is sometimes applied to sex offenders to the detriment of justice.

Here’s a good article on the subject: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/

JEDIT: Ugh, I keep forgetting what thread I’m in. I’m just too keen on getting into debates…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Lol I worded my post wrong. Obviously 1% of priests isn’t in the hundreds of thousands, the total is.

.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

If I remember correctly, the estimate was 6% of priests.

I did a bit more research on it, and it looks like different numbers come from different countries. In Australia, it’s a disgusting 7%. In the US, it’s about 4%. In most countries, though, it’s significantly lower, as far as I can tell, so 1% might not be that far off globally. I can’t find any global statistics to back that up though. By way of anecdotal evidence, however, I think there have been only a handful of cases across western Canada, meaning that significantly less than 1% of priests here are guilty of abuse (in Eastern Canada, the problem is far more severe, unfortunately).

I found this article interesting: http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625 (the Washington Post also supports that claim).

Author
Time

I think you can agree that any percentage is disgusting.

Author
Time

Yup. Sin in general is disgusting, but pedophilic abuse of children is pretty close to the top of the list. The fact that so many priests have exploited the trust people have for them is simply horrific, as most priests would agree. Fortunately for its credibility, the Church has never claimed to not be full of hypocrites and sinners, because being Christian doesn’t seem to affect the way some people behave.